People v. Jamil H.

California Court of Appeal Jul 24, 1984 No. A019549Published

Before: Scott

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an accusatory pleading charging a violation of Penal Code section 626.8 must specify the particular statute, ordinance, or regulation that the defendant allegedly intended to violate to establish the element of entering school grounds 'without lawful business.' Because the petition failed to provide this notice, the demurrer should have been sustained with leave to amend.

Issues

Whether an accusatory pleading charging a violation of Penal Code section 626.8 is constitutionally sufficient when it fails to specify the statute, ordinance, or regulation defining the 'lawful business' element.
Whether the defendant waived the right to challenge the sufficiency of the accusatory pleading on appeal by failing to focus on the specific issue in his written demurrer memorandum.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“When a statute defines a material element of an offense by a reference to other forbidden acts, the accusatory pleading must be more specific than the statute.”

[558]

Opinion

SCOTT, J.

Jamil H., a minor, appeals from a judgment sustaining a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, which alleged that he had committed a violation of Penal Code section 626.8.

The evidence at the jurisdictional hearing established the following. At about 11 a.m., Ronald Solis, assistant administrative principal at Roosevelt Junior High School, went to the school’s gym area, after being notified by a gym teacher of the presence of nonstudents. Solis was accompanied by Mrs. Stevenson, a counselor.

They saw appellant Jamil H. and two other youths walking from the gym. When Solis asked Jamil why he was there, the youth replied by using profanity, and threatening to slap the counselor. Solis said he would call police if Jamil didn’t leave, and started back to the office. Jamil and his companions eventually left, and Solis did not call police.

That afternoon, right after school was out, Solis again saw Jamil and a companion in the gym area. Solis approached, told Jamil he’d learned his name and called his mother. Jamil again used profanity and was belligerent. Solis called police, and appellant was arrested on the sidewalk in front of the school.

Jamil was not a student at this school, and Solis had not given him permission to be on campus. Solis testified that when class is in session, non-students are not allowed in enclosed school buildings unless they come through the office and receive a pass. However, he did not mention a specific district regulation which so provides.

Jamil testified that he had come to the school to talk with Mr. Green, one of the gym teachers, and that he was just leaving to go home when approached by Solis. He admitted cursing and yelling at Solis. He also admitted returning that afternoon; he claimed he did so to see his nephew, a student there.

As amended, the petition alleged that he violated Penal Code section 626.8, a misdemeanor, in that he did “willfully and unlawfully enter a school building and come upon a school ground . . .

People v. Jamil H.

AI Brief

SCOTT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief